1
|
Li Y, Spradling K, Allen IE, Conti S, Hampson LA. Evaluation of urology trainee preferences in didactic education: a choice-based conjoint analysis. Front Med (Lausanne) 2023; 10:1144092. [PMID: 37484852 PMCID: PMC10359114 DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2023.1144092] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/13/2023] [Accepted: 06/09/2023] [Indexed: 07/25/2023] Open
Abstract
Purpose Didactic lectures are a commonly used educational tool during urology residency training. Recently, there has been a rapid introduction of online, collaborative didactics as a new model for resident teaching. The aim of this study is to determine which attributes of didactics education are most preferred by contemporary urology trainees. Methods Urology trainees were invited to complete an online choice-based exercise assessing combinations of four attributes associated with didactics education: mode of communication, learning style, presenter credentials, and curriculum design. The survey was distributed via social media platforms and the Urology Collaborative Online Video Didactics (COViD) website. A choice-based conjoint analysis was used to identify how the trainees valued different combinations of didactic education. Results Seventy-three trainees completed the conjoint analysis exercise. Mode of communication was rated as significantly more important than curriculum design (relative importance 28.6% vs. 19.9%). Overall, the majority preferred online/virtual presentations to in-person presentations. Respondents preferred national experts to faculty members from their local institutions, and preferred cased based lectures to didactics style lectures. A nationally standardized curriculum was also preferred over curriculum designed by local institutions. Finally, when segmented by level of training, there was increased preference for overall favored options as PGY year increased. Conclusion This conjoint analysis shows clear preference by trainees for online, recorded didactics, nationally standardized with national experts, and preferably in a case-based format. Academic societies in urology and program directors should consider utilizing the shared experience of previously created collaborative online lectures in developing future didactic curriculum that can meet the needs of current trainees.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yi Li
- Department of Urology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States
| | - Kyle Spradling
- Department of Urology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, United States
| | - Isabel Elaine Allen
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States
| | - Simon Conti
- Department of Urology, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, United States
| | - Lindsay A. Hampson
- Department of Urology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, United States
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Fleming CA, Fullard A, Croghan S, Pellino G, Pata F. Robotic Abdominal Surgery and COVID-19: A Systematic Review of Published Literature and Peer-Reviewed Guidelines during the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic. J Clin Med 2022; 11:2957. [PMID: 35683346 DOI: 10.3390/jcm11112957] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/04/2022] [Revised: 05/05/2022] [Accepted: 05/20/2022] [Indexed: 02/04/2023] Open
Abstract
Background: Significant concern emerged at the beginning of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic regarding the safety and practicality of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS). We aimed to review reported surgical practice and peer-reviewed published review recommendations and guidelines relating to RAS during the pandemic. Methods: A systematic review was performed in keeping with PRISMA guidelines. This study was registered on Open Science Framework. Databases were searched using the following search terms: ‘robotic surgery’, ‘robotics’, ‘COVID-19’, and ‘SARS-CoV-2’. Firstly, articles describing any outcome from or reference to robotic surgery during the COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 pandemic were considered for inclusion. Guidelines or review articles that outlined recommendations were included if published in a peer-reviewed journal and incorporating direct reference to RAS practice during the pandemic. The ROBINS-I (Risk of Bias in Non-Randomised Studies of Intervention) tool was used to assess the quality of surgical practice articles and guidelines and recommendation publications were assessed using the AGREE-II reporting tool. Publication trends, median time from submission to acceptance were reported along with clinical outcomes and practice recommendations. Results: Twenty-nine articles were included: 15 reporting RAS practice and 14 comprising peer-reviewed guidelines or review recommendations related to RAS during the pandemic, with multiple specialities (i.e., urology, colorectal, digestive surgery, and general minimally invasive surgery) covered. Included articles were published April 2020—December 2021, and the median interval from first submission to acceptance was 92 days. All surgical practice studies scored ‘low’ or ‘moderate’ risk of bias on the ROBINS-I assessment. All guidelines and recommendations scored ‘moderately well’ on the AGREE-II assessment; however, all underperformed in the domain of public and patient involvement. Overall, there were no increases in perioperative complication rates or mortalities in patients who underwent RAS compared to that expected in non-COVID practice. RAS was deemed safe, with recommendations for mitigation of risk of viral transmission. Conclusions: Continuation of RAS was feasible and safe during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic where resources permitted. Post-pandemic reflections upon published robotic data and publication patterns allows us to better prepare for future events and to enhance urgent guideline design processes.
Collapse
|
3
|
Abstract
REASON FOR REVIEW A recent shift towards use of telehealth and remote learning has significant implications on resident and fellow education in urology. Implementation of multi-institutional online didactic programs, spurred on by the COVID epidemic, has changed the traditional resident teaching paradigm from individual institutional silos of knowledge and expertise to a shared nationwide database of learning. RECENT FINDINGS: In this article, we explore the current trend towards virtual education and its progress to date, lessons learned on the optimization of this teaching modality, and future direction and sustainability of collaborated, standardized and accessible didactic education in urology. Multi-institutional collaborative remote video didactics has emerged as a critical part of resident education. These lectures have been overwhelmingly successful and have persisted beyond the pandemic to become a part of the urologic training curricula. This collaborative and standardized approach to resident education provides access to national and international experts, encourages cross-institutional collaboration and discussion, and builds a repository of lectures with easy access for learners. Utilization of this teaching modality will continue to be impactful in urologic training and will require ongoing efforts and input from both collaborating intuitions and professional societies to continue to improve on and engage in this important learning tool.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yi Li
- Department of Urology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
| | - Nora G Kern
- Department of Urology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA
| | - Simon L Conti
- Department of Urology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Lindsay A Hampson
- Department of Urology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Amparore D, Checcucci E, Serni S, Minervini A, Gacci M, Esperto F, Fiori C, Porpiglia F, Campi R. Urology Residency Training at the Time of COVID-19 in Italy: 1 Year After the Beginning. EUR UROL SUPPL 2021; 31:37-40. [PMID: 34396350 PMCID: PMC8342892 DOI: 10.1016/j.euros.2021.07.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 07/07/2021] [Indexed: 10/29/2022] Open
Abstract
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to significant changes in urology practice and residency programs. One year ago, the first nationwide survey on this topic showed a dramatic impact of the acute phase of the pandemic on residents' training activities. Aiming to assess for the first time how the COVID-19 scenario reshaped the pattern of urology training over a whole pandemic year, a cross-sectional, 38-item, web-based survey was developed. Residents scored the percentage decrease of their involvement in various clinical and surgical activities during the period of March 2020-March 2021 (as compared with the pre-COVID period). Overall, 312/585 (53.3%) residents from 27 schools of urology were included. The proportions of those experiencing a significant decrease of training exposure were 13.6%, 28.8%, 26.7%, 46.9%, 37.6%, and 33.3% (as compared with 40.2%, 85.8%. 82.3%, 69.7%, 59.7%, and 50.2% in the previous survey) for on-call activities, outpatient visits, diagnostic procedures, endoscopic surgery, open surgery, and minimally invasive surgery, respectively. The most impactful reductions in training activities were reached by final-year residents. Our findings highlight that, even if less burdensome than expected, urology residency training (especially in endoscopic surgery) was highly affected throughout the whole past year. This critical gap of skills may jeopardize residents' training even beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. PATIENT SUMMARY In this study, we assessed whether the training activities of Italian urology residents were impacted negatively by a whole year of COVID-19 pandemic (March 2020-March 2021). We also compared our results with those reported in a previous survey evaluating how the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic changed the training pattern of urology residents during the peak of the outbreak in March 2020. We found a critical decrease in residents' activities (especially for those in their final years of residency and for surgical procedures) that, even if lower than expected, might negatively impact their education and training in the future.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniele Amparore
- Division of Urology, Department of Oncology, School of Medicine, San Luigi Hospital, University of Turin, Orbassano, Turin, Italy
| | - Enrico Checcucci
- Division of Urology, Department of Oncology, School of Medicine, San Luigi Hospital, University of Turin, Orbassano, Turin, Italy
- European Society of Residents in Urology (ESRU), Arnhem, The Netherlands
| | - Sergio Serni
- Unit of Urological Robotic Surgery and Renal Transplantation, University of Florence, Careggi Hospital, Florence, Italy
- Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
| | - Andrea Minervini
- Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
- Unit of Urological Oncologic Minimally-Invasive Robotic Surgery and Andrology, University of Florence, Careggi Hospital, Florence, Italy
| | - Mauro Gacci
- Unit of Urological Robotic Surgery and Renal Transplantation, University of Florence, Careggi Hospital, Florence, Italy
- Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
| | - Francesco Esperto
- European Society of Residents in Urology (ESRU), Arnhem, The Netherlands
- Department of Urology, Campus Biomedico University, Rome, Italy
| | - Cristian Fiori
- Division of Urology, Department of Oncology, School of Medicine, San Luigi Hospital, University of Turin, Orbassano, Turin, Italy
| | - Francesco Porpiglia
- Division of Urology, Department of Oncology, School of Medicine, San Luigi Hospital, University of Turin, Orbassano, Turin, Italy
| | - Riccardo Campi
- European Society of Residents in Urology (ESRU), Arnhem, The Netherlands
| | - on behalf of the European Society of Residents in Urology (ESRU)
- Division of Urology, Department of Oncology, School of Medicine, San Luigi Hospital, University of Turin, Orbassano, Turin, Italy
- European Society of Residents in Urology (ESRU), Arnhem, The Netherlands
- Unit of Urological Robotic Surgery and Renal Transplantation, University of Florence, Careggi Hospital, Florence, Italy
- Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, University of Florence, Florence, Italy
- Unit of Urological Oncologic Minimally-Invasive Robotic Surgery and Andrology, University of Florence, Careggi Hospital, Florence, Italy
- Department of Urology, Campus Biomedico University, Rome, Italy
| |
Collapse
|